SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Chasing a Gold Glover: Ceddanne Rafaela
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 8, 2024 9:57:31 GMT -5
Once guys sign contracts, their surplus value mostly evaporates. If the Sox were considering trading Rafaela they would not have signed him I disagree with this strongly. Rafaela would be perceived as more valuable to a team that likes him with those two extra seasons of team control on the relatively cheap. If he's a 20/20 guy, even if it's with a .280 OBP, he'd be making a ton in arbitration in a couple of years. Bronson Arroyo is kind of the textbook case of a guy whose value went up while on a team-friendly contract.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 8, 2024 11:33:00 GMT -5
Once guys sign contracts, their surplus value mostly evaporates. If the Sox were considering trading Rafaela they would not have signed him I disagree with this strongly. Rafaela would be perceived as more valuable to a team that likes him with those two extra seasons of team control on the relatively cheap. If he's a 20/20 guy, even if it's with a .280 OBP, he'd be making a ton in arbitration in a couple of years. Bronson Arroyo is kind of the textbook case of a guy whose value went up while on a team-friendly contract. I don't think the surplus value evaporates, but keep in mind that the Red Sox really benefit from the extension on the backend because of the way the LT hit is calculated, and the AAV would (I think) get recalculated if he were to be traded. So this offseason, you would have a scenario where the acquiring team is buying a contract with an AAV just under $7 million, whereas the Red Sox would be selling a contract with an AAV of $6.25 million. And that gap would grow every year, if they moved him after the 2025 season, he would still have $47.5 million remaining on deal for the last 6 years. ADd in that the extension was a little polarizing based on your opinions around Rafaela's bat going forward and a match to me becomes kind of difficult to envision.
There is definitely still surplus value even after a player signs an extension, but I do agree that if the Sox had even the smallest idea that they might trade him, my guess is they would have just gone year-to-year with him.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 8, 2024 12:13:12 GMT -5
I disagree with this strongly. Rafaela would be perceived as more valuable to a team that likes him with those two extra seasons of team control on the relatively cheap. If he's a 20/20 guy, even if it's with a .280 OBP, he'd be making a ton in arbitration in a couple of years. Bronson Arroyo is kind of the textbook case of a guy whose value went up while on a team-friendly contract. I don't think the surplus value evaporates, but keep in mind that the Red Sox really benefit from the extension on the backend because of the way the LT hit is calculated, and the AAV would (I think) get recalculated if he were to be traded. So this offseason, you would have a scenario where the acquiring team is buying a contract with an AAV just under $7 million, whereas the Red Sox would be selling a contract with an AAV of $6.25 million. And that gap would grow every year, if they moved him after the 2025 season, he would still have $47.5 million remaining on deal for the last 6 years. ADd in that the extension was a little polarizing based on your opinions around Rafaela's bat going forward and a match to me becomes kind of difficult to envision.
There is definitely still surplus value even after a player signs an extension, but I do agree that if the Sox had even the smallest idea that they might trade him, my guess is they would have just gone year-to-year with him.
It's not like a team trading for him wouldn't get the same benefit though. Your point about the recalculation only starts to matter much in like 2 or 3 years, right? But yeah, it changes the timeline. I also don't think teams think of guys in a "we are/are not going to trade this player in 3 years" sense.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 8, 2024 12:40:26 GMT -5
I don't think the surplus value evaporates, but keep in mind that the Red Sox really benefit from the extension on the backend because of the way the LT hit is calculated, and the AAV would (I think) get recalculated if he were to be traded. So this offseason, you would have a scenario where the acquiring team is buying a contract with an AAV just under $7 million, whereas the Red Sox would be selling a contract with an AAV of $6.25 million. And that gap would grow every year, if they moved him after the 2025 season, he would still have $47.5 million remaining on deal for the last 6 years. ADd in that the extension was a little polarizing based on your opinions around Rafaela's bat going forward and a match to me becomes kind of difficult to envision.
There is definitely still surplus value even after a player signs an extension, but I do agree that if the Sox had even the smallest idea that they might trade him, my guess is they would have just gone year-to-year with him.
It's not like a team trading for him wouldn't get the same benefit though. Your point about the recalculation only starts to matter much in like 2 or 3 years, right? But yeah, it changes the timeline. I also don't think teams think of guys in a "we are/are not going to trade this player in 3 years" sense. The acquiring would benefit from the extension definitely, but it would still be less than the Red Sox benefit. In that scenario it becomes hard for me to imagine that the Red Sox would get equivalent value back when they are sending more value away than the acquiring team is getting. The Red Sox aren't just going to move Rafaela for the sake of moving him right? If they are going to trade him, they are going to make sure they are getting fair value back, but that definition of 'fair value' will vary.
Maybe I'm overstating things, but it seems like trades are hard enough as is even when teams value players on a roughly even playing field. Adding in another wrinkle where this contract benefits the Sox more than another team and I have my doubts.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Aug 8, 2024 12:51:35 GMT -5
Why does it benefit the Red Sox more than another team? Whether he's on the Sox or an acquiring team, they would both get the same benefit of a cost controlled player through arbitration years and then 2 more. Not sure why the Sox would benefit any more than another team.
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Aug 8, 2024 13:03:14 GMT -5
I doubt Rafaela ends up being the odd man out if we do achieve that dream scenario of Duran/Rafaela/Anthony/Abreu all being starting caliber outfielders by 2025 or 2026, but we'll see. Unless he goes sub-Mendoza, I don't think there's any way his contract could appreciably dampen his trade value. If Team A thinks that an AAV of $7m for Rafaela is fine for their situation, that's really the only thing relevant to their analysis. Trades aren't typically zero-sum and value can vary so much from team-to-team that the certainty of the contract is probably more than enough to outweigh any concerns an acquiring team might have about not maximizing theoretical surplus value versus the original team.
Anyway, I've enjoyed watching Petriello, Tom Tango, and others discuss the methodologies behind catch probability with Rafaela's recent highlight reel plays (the more spectacular being graded as 95+% catch probability and the not as obviously dramatic diving catch being <5%). I'm not sold on catch probability as a stat because there just seem to be so many variables that I'm not sure how much of the data included in each sample is actually relevant to each play, but it's fun to at least see how the sausage gets made a little bit. Regarding Rafaela's circus catch in deep center, he lost the ball in the light and had to chase down what was nominally a routine ball. Is it right to punish fielders for stuff like that? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't seem right to completely discount that the catch probability would have been different if the tracking started from the moment he could see the ball again, but I also understand that you can't build models to capture every edge case.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 8, 2024 13:17:36 GMT -5
Why does it benefit the Red Sox more than another team? Whether he's on the Sox or an acquiring team, they would both get the same benefit of a cost controlled player through arbitration years and then 2 more. Not sure why the Sox would benefit any more than another team. Someone else jump in if I'm wrong, but I thought the AAV of all contracts get recalculated if a player is traded. Rafaela's contract extension counts as $6.25 million against the CBT every year for the Red Sox, but since he still has $48.75 million on his deal, any acquiring team this offseason would see a CBT hit of just under $7 million. If the Red Sox traded him after the 2025 season it would be just under $7.9 million for the acquiring team. The margins aren't huge here, but it will impact how each team values him. Rafaela on a 6 year deal with an AAV of $6.25 is more valuable than Rafaela on a 6 year deal with an AAV of $7.9 million. Not to say that a trade is impossible, just that I think it's hard to find one where both sides come out happy.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Aug 8, 2024 13:49:30 GMT -5
Why does it benefit the Red Sox more than another team? Whether he's on the Sox or an acquiring team, they would both get the same benefit of a cost controlled player through arbitration years and then 2 more. Not sure why the Sox would benefit any more than another team. Someone else jump in if I'm wrong, but I thought the AAV of all contracts get recalculated if a player is traded. Rafaela's contract extension counts as $6.25 million against the CBT every year for the Red Sox, but since he still has $48.75 million on his deal, any acquiring team this offseason would see a CBT hit of just under $7 million. If the Red Sox traded him after the 2025 season it would be just under $7.9 million for the acquiring team. The margins aren't huge here, but it will impact how each team values him. Rafaela on a 6 year deal with an AAV of $6.25 is more valuable than Rafaela on a 6 year deal with an AAV of $7.9 million. Not to say that a trade is impossible, just that I think it's hard to find one where both sides come out happy.
A. The margins are so small they would naturally fall into the error bars any team has around it's valuation estimates. No team says this player is worth "20M in surplus value" and an offer of "19M" is out of the question. Those are the same because any real value estimate would include error bars. If there is any evidence that teams can discriminate the value of a player down to 1M or whatever, they have not demonstrated it publicly. It's pretty safe to assume it doesn't exist. B. The AAV value issue only applied to ~6-8 teams that are over the luxury tax. The other 20+ teams don't care at all.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 8, 2024 14:31:07 GMT -5
Someone else jump in if I'm wrong, but I thought the AAV of all contracts get recalculated if a player is traded. Rafaela's contract extension counts as $6.25 million against the CBT every year for the Red Sox, but since he still has $48.75 million on his deal, any acquiring team this offseason would see a CBT hit of just under $7 million. If the Red Sox traded him after the 2025 season it would be just under $7.9 million for the acquiring team. The margins aren't huge here, but it will impact how each team values him. Rafaela on a 6 year deal with an AAV of $6.25 is more valuable than Rafaela on a 6 year deal with an AAV of $7.9 million. Not to say that a trade is impossible, just that I think it's hard to find one where both sides come out happy.
A. The margins are so small they would naturally fall into the error bars any team has around it's valuation estimates. No team says this player is worth "20M in surplus value" and an offer of "19M" is out of the question. Those are the same because any real value estimate would include error bars. If there is any evidence that teams can discriminate the value of a player down to 1M or whatever, they have not demonstrated it publicly. It's pretty safe to assume it doesn't exist. B. The AAV value issue only applied to ~6-8 teams that are over the luxury tax. The other 20+ teams don't care at all. Your 'error bars' argument doesn't change the discussion, it just moves the goal posts. If the player costs 20mil and a team is willing to offer 17mil but with 2mil in 'error bars' they still end-up at the same place (1mil short). Although I agree that for many players teams aren't this minute when calculating value, for role-players they certainly seem to be. The idea is that the AAV benefit helps the Red Sox. If the player goes to another team that doesn't benefit from the lower AAV, or if the AAV benefit is removed due to the trade, the receiving team would gain slightly less benefit (all other factors being equal).
|
|
ematz1423
Veteran
Posts: 6,421
Member is Online
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 8, 2024 15:42:45 GMT -5
If Rafaela proves to be a player who can put up 3+ WAR a season then I don't think any team is going to care if his AAV is a million or so higher than what the Sox currently have him at and if for some reason a team does have an issue with that but the Sox really want the player they would theoretically acquire for him they could easily just pay down his contract that 1M a year anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bojacksoxfan on Aug 8, 2024 16:17:16 GMT -5
If Rafaela proves to be a player who can put up 3+ WAR a season then I don't think any team is going to care if his AAV is a million or so higher than what the Sox currently have him at and if for some reason a team does have an issue with that but the Sox really want the player they would theoretically acquire for him they could easily just pay down his contract that 1M a year anyway. Of course. Trying to see every transaction through a narrow and simplistic surplus value prism seems to have ruined a large portion of online baseball discussion. Thankfully teams don't act that way. That's why there was so much activity at the deadline. Move fungible talent - and the vast majority of MLB players and prospects are - for improved roster fits. Shock the world and try to make your team better!
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Aug 8, 2024 16:22:11 GMT -5
Really looking forward to 7+ more years discussing trading Ceddanne while he proves to be the best defensive Swiss Army knife in all of MLB.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Aug 9, 2024 5:49:31 GMT -5
Once guys sign contracts, their surplus value mostly evaporates. If the Sox were considering trading Rafaela they would not have signed him I disagree with this strongly. Rafaela would be perceived as more valuable to a team that likes him with those two extra seasons of team control on the relatively cheap. If he's a 20/20 guy, even if it's with a .280 OBP, he'd be making a ton in arbitration in a couple of years. Bronson Arroyo is kind of the textbook case of a guy whose value went up while on a team-friendly contract. I read this and other post regarding Rafaela's contract while at work and therefore did not respond and it was driving me crazy. Thanks for the response James. Any contract that is team friendly is a valuable contract, period. While different teams all evaluate players differently a team friendly deal increases the value of that contract. This increases the chances the players get traded eventually. I see this as common sense and not a bone of contention and the main reason it drove me crazy not to be able to respond in kind. Another fallacy is when teams do trade players with team friendly contracts, fans here to often claim players will not want to play for us. All teams occasionally trade team friendly deals and no team has a reputation for abusing players due to doing that, thereby rendering that notion toothless.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Aug 9, 2024 8:56:08 GMT -5
Really looking forward to 7+ more years discussing trading Ceddanne while he proves to be the best defensive Swiss Army knife in all of MLB. Glass half full: I'd prefer that to seven years of discussion of how much of a mistake it was to trade him. That said, it does kind of stand to reason that someone from the group of Rafaela, Abreu, Anthony, or Mayer gets dealt at some point, both because of roster construction and also because other teams are going to want those good players in exchange for their own good players. And it's impossible to assess which one "should" be traded without knowing what other teams are willing to trade for them. And you just kind of hope it's a Hanley Ramirez situation where the player who you're trading is as good as you think but that the return is worth it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 9, 2024 9:45:22 GMT -5
I disagree with this strongly. Rafaela would be perceived as more valuable to a team that likes him with those two extra seasons of team control on the relatively cheap. If he's a 20/20 guy, even if it's with a .280 OBP, he'd be making a ton in arbitration in a couple of years. Bronson Arroyo is kind of the textbook case of a guy whose value went up while on a team-friendly contract. I read this and other post regarding Rafaela's contract while at work and therefore did not respond and it was driving me crazy. Thanks for the response James. Any contract that is team friendly is a valuable contract, period. While different teams all evaluate players differently a team friendly deal increases the value of that contract. This increases the chances the players get traded eventually. I see this as common sense and not a bone of contention and the main reason it drove me crazy not to be able to respond in kind. Another fallacy is when teams do trade players with team friendly contracts, fans here to often claim players will not want to play for us. All teams occasionally trade team friendly deals and no team has a reputation for abusing players due to doing that, thereby rendering that notion toothless. Sorry for the back and forth here and maybe it is deserving of its own thread, but how does being on a team friendly deal increase the odds that the Red Sox deal that player? That was the initial point I was making: Rafaela's deal in my eyes lowers the odds of him being dealt, by a lot. How often have the Red Sox traded away a player that was under contract with them for anywhere near the length of Rafaela's contract, even if you broaden it and look at all long-term commitments? Taking a look at this thread about large contracts, out of the 29 listed there, the Red Sox eventually traded 5 away when they still had at least 2+ years on the contract, and 3 of those were the Punto trade. The other 2 were Renteria (4 years) and Price (3). And while the sample size is small, none of the players who signed an extension in their pre-arb years were moved with significant time left on the deal: Lester, Pedroia, Buchholz or Bogaerts.
It could happen in a 'anything can happen' sort of way, but there aren't really any examples of the Red Sox moving a player on a contract like Rafaela's. The same goes for Bello in my eyes. The only way I could see either of those guys moving is if something goes seriously wrong over the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 9, 2024 10:37:55 GMT -5
I read this and other post regarding Rafaela's contract while at work and therefore did not respond and it was driving me crazy. Thanks for the response James. Any contract that is team friendly is a valuable contract, period. While different teams all evaluate players differently a team friendly deal increases the value of that contract. This increases the chances the players get traded eventually. I see this as common sense and not a bone of contention and the main reason it drove me crazy not to be able to respond in kind. Another fallacy is when teams do trade players with team friendly contracts, fans here to often claim players will not want to play for us. All teams occasionally trade team friendly deals and no team has a reputation for abusing players due to doing that, thereby rendering that notion toothless. Sorry for the back and forth here and maybe it is deserving of its own thread, but how does being on a team friendly deal increase the odds that the Red Sox deal that player? That was the initial point I was making: Rafaela's deal in my eyes lowers the odds of him being dealt, by a lot. How often have the Red Sox traded away a player that was under contract with them for anywhere near the length of Rafaela's contract, even if you broaden it and look at all long-term commitments? Taking a look at this thread about large contracts, out of the 29 listed there, the Red Sox eventually traded 5 away when they still had at least 2+ years on the contract, and 3 of those were the Punto trade. The other 2 were Renteria (4 years) and Price (3). And while the sample size is small, none of the players who signed an extension in their pre-arb years were moved with significant time left on the deal: Lester, Pedroia, Buchholz or Bogaerts.
It could happen in a 'anything can happen' sort of way, but there aren't really any examples of the Red Sox moving a player on a contract like Rafaela's. The same goes for Bello in my eyes. The only way I could see either of those guys moving is if something goes seriously wrong over the next few years.
I do think there's something to what you're saying. I think the basic issue is: what kind of trade would it make sense to include Rafaela in? If the Red Sox are in win-now mode (which they should be for the foreseeable future, they'll be wanting to add major league talent; but Rafaela himself has value now - he is major league talent, and since he's extended he's not just on a minimum salary either, so the acquiring team will have to value him for what he offers in the near future and his long-term value.
In short, due to his extension he fits less neatly into the typical prospects-for-established-talent framework that defines most significant trades. The sort of Rfaela trade that would make sense would be one where the Red Sox and another team that is trying to maintain consistent competitiveness swap from their own depth to balance their roster. Obviously that can happen, but it's going to be rare to find another team whose incentives line up in a way that allows it to happen.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Aug 9, 2024 10:54:36 GMT -5
We won a WS with Jackie in CF. Rafaela is very similar why trade him!? The kids first season he's playing like this and he's signed long term. Hes going to get better. I'd rather have him be the 4th OF and backup SS then trade him his glove is too valuable. Let the kid grow he's playing unbelievable for his first year and I love watching him in CF. Love him smiling have a good time making plays it's contagious and extremely good for team chemistry. For a team as bad as us defensively I dont get why anyone would entertain trading our best defensive player. Of course if we traded him for an Ace thats a different story but very unlikely. I just wish we could just enjoy him. We're an overloaded LHH team with bad defense so we talk about trading our RHH Gold Glove caliber CF 😆. Also it seems like he mashes against the MFY.
|
|
|
Post by wkdbigsoxfan on Aug 9, 2024 10:59:54 GMT -5
I guess my point is is there precedent for guys signing pre-arb deals and then getting traded? Nobody comes to mind for me but I could be missing somebody. Are they not paying Rafaela more than they would have if they played the arb out? That takes away some of his surplus value which is what I’m getting at. They could still trade him he just theoretically has lower surplus. His extra value would be in ‘30 and ‘31
|
|
|
Post by awalkinthepark on Aug 9, 2024 11:13:36 GMT -5
To bring this discussion back from all the trade talk...
Since 5/1 Rafaela has played in 81 games and had 312 plate appearances. He's slashing .283/.313/.441 with 11 HR and 12 SB over that timeframe, good for a 104 wRC+. He still has a 46% chase rate, but on pitches over the heart of the plate he has a .365 xwOBA, a 56% hard hit rate and an 11% barrel rate, so he's doing damage on the pitches he needs to do damage on.
His defense still grades out as below average at SS, but if he can continue to hit the way he has the last 3 months the contract will wind up a steal.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 9, 2024 11:18:28 GMT -5
I guess my point is is there precedent for guys signing pre-arb deals and then getting traded? Nobody comes to mind for me but I could be missing somebody. Are they not paying Rafaela more than they would have if they played the arb out? That takes away some of his surplus value which is what I’m getting at. They could still trade him he just theoretically has lower surplus. His extra value would be in ‘30 and ‘31 Bronson Arroyo comes quickly to mind.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Aug 9, 2024 12:21:19 GMT -5
I guess my point is is there precedent for guys signing pre-arb deals and then getting traded? Nobody comes to mind for me but I could be missing somebody. Are they not paying Rafaela more than they would have if they played the arb out? That takes away some of his surplus value which is what I’m getting at. They could still trade him he just theoretically has lower surplus. His extra value would be in ‘30 and ‘31 Bronson Arroyo comes quickly to mind. Also I don't think he's making much more than he would have. 24:$1M, 25:$1M, 26:$2M 27:$3.5M, 28:$5.5M, 29:$7.5M 30:$10.5M, 31:$13M, 32:$16M club option ($4M buyout) Like I don't think some team is going to balk at trading for him because he's making $2m in 2026 instead of $1m.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 9, 2024 12:42:49 GMT -5
Bronson Arroyo comes quickly to mind. Also I don't think he's making much more than he would have. 24:$1M, 25:$1M, 26:$2M 27:$3.5M, 28:$5.5M, 29:$7.5M 30:$10.5M, 31:$13M, 32:$16M club option ($4M buyout) Like I don't think some team is going to balk at trading for him because he's making $2m in 2026 instead of $1m. aaaaand if a team is trading for him, they're likely valuing him as or more highly than the Sox. Again, if he outperforms the contract, not only is there a surplus, but also the unsigned cost would have been higher through arbitration / free agency.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Aug 13, 2024 14:21:42 GMT -5
So, like, I've gone back and forth on Rafaela. In a perfect world, he might be a (darn good) bench piece if you have a quality MIF and 3 OF who can both hit and field. But as far as value to the team, his positional versatility is off the CHARTS. Sure he's not a world-beating defensive SS, but to play that position well enough, and then also an outstanding OF, while hitting enough to stay in the line-up is GOLD. To whit: when they needed a SS for months, he stepped in. Now they're down to exactly 3 OF, and it's like, sure, you're giving up a little bit w the bat, but that's three outstanding defensive OF out there.
P.S. I know that no one is arguing this point, but it's been at least a few hours since I've heard it said, and it should be repeated regularly. :-)
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Aug 13, 2024 20:40:10 GMT -5
Not sure how much you're giving up with the bat when the number 9 hitter in the lineup sports an MLB average OPS comprised of a slightly below average OPB but somewhat above average BA and SLG.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Aug 13, 2024 20:54:34 GMT -5
I want CR as full time CF. I dont see how it dosnt make the team better for years to come. Assuming any progression at all
|
|
|